dSLR thread

[e_dawg]

Another point in favour of the big guns (Canon, Nikon) is that many of their lenses come with optical image stabilization. Tamron didn't even have a single lens with OIS until now, and Sigma only released their second model recently (although their first "OS" lens -- the 80-400 -- came out way before Tamron's first model).

 

[mubs]

My niece got married recently and they had professionals shooting both stills and video. I was an extra still photographer with my Canon A620, and my troubles with the batteries being unable to service the demands of the flash prompted all that agonizing in the P&S thread.

The pro still photographer's pics turned out absolutely horrible, I don't know why. Color is weak, pics are washed out, there's too much lighting and too much contrast. Exif info says the camera was a Noritsu Koki Model QSS-32_33, whatever that is. It is supposedly a dSLR.

Her wedding reception was held in another, much smaller town, and those pics are absolutely stunning. The second I saw the pics, I said dSLR, and I was right. According to Exif info, two Nikons were used: a D70 and a D70s. My niece did say that the setup was very pro, with white umbrellas and light being bounced off of those. The lighting is very soft and even, but Exif info for sample photos taken with both cameras says

LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, return light detected

I can't stop thinking about how good those pics were. I know the lighting played a major part, but the shallow depth of field (which I really miss from the film SLR days) makes for fabulous shots. Maybe I should sell my soul to the debil and get a dSLR, and start on the long, slow road to penury ....

 

[paugie]

I can't stop thinking about how good those pics were. I know the lighting played a major part, but the shallow depth of field (which I really miss from the film SLR days) makes for fabulous shots. Maybe I should sell my soul to the debil and get a dSLR, and start on the long, slow road to penury ....

My fantasy, too. But I could never do it. Your long, slow road to penury would be pretty instantaneous one for me.

This thread is the fastest growing thread in recent memory. And lots of good info in it.

 

[e_dawg]

The pro still photographer's pics turned out absolutely horrible, I don't know why. Color is weak, pics are washed out, there's too much lighting and too much contrast. Exif info says the camera was a Noritsu Koki Model QSS-32_33, whatever that is. It is supposedly a dSLR.

Noritsu? They manufacture half the world's photo lab film developers and printers. The QSS-32/33 is one of their recent printer models. The pro likely sent his pics to be printed at a lab with that printer. Depending on the lab, they could have butchered otherwise decent pics from the pro, or the pro might not have done everything he could have to ensure faithful prints. Sometimes you can find out what colour management profile / settings they use and save your output to match their profile and colour space.

If I had the choice these days, i think I might just print my own photos because you have control over exactly how your prints will look and can produce better looking prints than those from a lab without too much effort. Cost may be a different story, though.

Her wedding reception was held in another, much smaller town, and those pics are absolutely stunning. The second I saw the pics, I said dSLR, and I was right. According to Exif info, two Nikons were used: a D70 and a D70s. My niece did say that the setup was very pro, with white umbrellas and light being bounced off of those. The lighting is very soft and even [...]

I can't stop thinking about how good those pics were. I know the lighting played a major part, but the shallow depth of field (which I really miss from the film SLR days) makes for fabulous shots...

One of the reasons to get a dSLR is flash performance. The lighting setup is often what separates the men from the boys (or rather, the pros from the amateurs). Most amateurs don't go to elaborate lengths to set up multiple lighting sources, umbrellas, metering, etc.

Speaking of Nikon, they are known for the quality of their pictures taken with flash and the capability of their CLS flash system. You can even use a couple consumer level SB-600 flashes with stands & umbrellas and one SB-800 mounted on the camera as a commander to have a pro-style lighting setup, all metered and balanced automatically through i-TTL and controlled wirelessly through the built-in transceivers in each flash.

You, too, can have all this for the low low price of $400 (used Nikon D50). A 50/1.8, while not the ideal portrait length, costs $115 new. Add a Nikon SB-600 for $180. Add a Gary Fong Lightsphere flash diffuser for $50. For $745, you now have a setup that can take wonderful portraits. I wouldn't exactly call that selling your soul.

 

[mubs]

Keep talking, e_dawg, I like what I'm hearing :-D

What impressed me most was the indoor lighting performance of the Nikon's. Color is perfect, exposure is perfect, white balance is perfect. More and more, my camera use is indoors, and I am realizing I need a system that performs well indoors.

What I have is JPGs, not prints; the EXIF info from the bad JPGs looks thus:

Make - NORITSU KOKI
Model - QSS-32_33
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - QSS-32_33 3.00.024 2006.03.28
DateTime - 
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 234
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 
DateTimeDigitized - 
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3089
ExifImageHeight - 2048
InteroperabilityOffset - 400
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Centimeter

Thumbnail: - 
Compression - 6 (JPG)
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 560
JpegIFByteCount - 12704
YCbCrPositioning - Centered

The Exif for a JPG taken with the D70s looks thus:

Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D70s
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Ver.1.00
DateTime - 2007:07:04 21:33:25
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 216
ExposureTime - 1/125 seconds
FNumber - 7.10
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:07:04 21:33:25
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:07:04 21:33:25
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 4 (bits/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 4.14
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash fired, auto mode, return light detected
FocalLength - 35.00 mm
UserComment - 
SubsecTime - 00
SubsecTimeOriginal - 00
SubsecTimeDigitized - 00
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2240
ExifImageHeight - 1488
InteroperabilityOffset - 30770
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 52 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - None
Contrast - Soft
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Hard
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): - 
Data version - 0210 (808595760)
ISO Setting - 250
Image Quality - FINE
White Balance - AUTO
Image Sharpening - HIGH
Focus Mode - AF-S
Flash Setting - NORMAL
Flash Mode - Optional
White Balance Adjustment - 0
Exposure Adjustment - -587133952
Thumbnail IFD offset - 1430
Flash Compensation - 67072
ISO 2 - 250
Tone Compensation - AUTO
Lens type - AF-D G
Lens - 618
Flash Used - 1
AF Focus Position - 33816576
Bracketing - 0
Color Mode - MODE1a
Light Type - SPEEDLIGHT
Hue Adjustment - 0
Noise Reduction - OFF
Total pictures - 55073
Optimization - SHARP

Thumbnail: - 
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 30908
JpegIFByteCount - 9196
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

 

[e_dawg]

Looks like the guy who took the pic with the D70s used the 18-70 kit lens too, not a prime lens or even a fast f/2.8 zoom.

Yes, it can be challenging to get natural looking flash pics indoors. This was something I really hated about P&S cameras and was a big factor in my decision to buy a dSLR. It was like night and day.

The key is to use an external flash, set the flash exp comp to -0.7 to -1 EV, use a high ISO like 800, and set a slow shutter speed like 1/30 sec in shutter priority mode. Basically, you're using the flash as fill, not your main lighting source. The high ISO and slow shutter speed allow you to get enough ambient light indoors to make the shot possible.

I think this is possible with any SLR + TTL external flash, but it's perhaps a little better with Nikon due to the variables they take into account when doing the i-TTL flash metering (distance information from a "D" lens, aperture, ISO, AF point, etc).

 

[LunarMist]

OMG, this is nuts!

 

[ddrueding]

Been out of touch for a bit, Lunar? This is a fast-moving thread

 

[LunarMist]

Ha! You Gen Y guys are too fast moving for us boomers.

 

[Handruin]

Get reading LM...I know you've said you were without the internet for a while, so I'm sure you have a lot to catch up on.

 

[ddrueding]

Seeking advice:

The Rodin Statuary collection near my house (Stanford) is impossible to get good exposures of. It is dark, and always has blown highlights. Do I need to wait until after sunset? What tricks will help?

 

[Stereodude]

Wait for an overcast day...

 

[LunarMist]

Yes, and find a better composition. The subject and purpose of the photo is not clear and the perspective is tilted.

 

[ddrueding]

Yes, and find a better composition. The subject and purpose of the photo is not clear and the perspective is tilted.

Yep. I spent over an hour attempting to get good shots of some of the pieces. When I realized I was screwed I snapped that shot to illustrate my problem to you guys and came home.

 

[LunarMist]

Can you handle some criticism, David? I think you should first read some books about photography and take some photo classes as well. Buying lenses won't improve the basic photography skills. Otherwise you will just have better image quality in P&S style photos.

 

[LunarMist]

WTF? Artist Name: tannin.net.au

 

[ddrueding]

WTF? Artist Name: tannin.net.au

That's where the camera came from. The setting is in there somewhere, I just haven't gone digging yet.

 

[ddrueding]

Can you handle some criticism, David? I think you should first read some books about photography and take some photo classes as well. Buying lenses won't improve the basic photography skills. Otherwise you will just have better image quality in P&S style photos.

Yep, I know. But I'm really bad at sitting down and reading or studying, and I do not have the attention span for formal classes of any kind. If there is a specific book or website you could recommend, I would appreciate it.

 

[Handruin]

Can you handle some criticism, David? I think you should first read some books about photography and take some photo classes as well. Buying lenses won't improve the basic photography skills. Otherwise you will just have better image quality in P&S style photos.

At least get into some books if you don't have time for classes. I also think it's important for you to keep going and keep your finger on the trigger and taking all sorts of pictures as long as you're asking yourself about the outcome (which you seem to be doing). I think there is lots to be gained from taking bad photos since the net result doesn't cost you anything more than a little bit of time. As you take them, you can learn from them and ask how to take better ones in the future. I've never viewed the lenses I own as a way for me to take better photos (as the equipment is only as good as my ability, or lack there of), but rather give me the chance to capture the best possible image I could if the luck and opportunity present itself.

 

[Handruin]

Yep, I know. But I'm really bad at sitting down and reading or studying, and I do not have the attention span for formal classes of any kind. If there is a specific book or website you could recommend, I would appreciate it.

I've gone into some of the major book stores and curled up next to the art section. Just look at anything that strikes your interest. The most helpful ones are books which give the details on the example photos.

Other books can give you the fundamentals of lighting and composition. Lunar might have better examples than I do, but when I find the box which contains my books that are still packed up, I'll send you the info.

 

[ddrueding]

One thing that I have started doing is looking at every picture I see in a different way. What did they capture? What are they saying? What tools/tricks did they use to illustrate their point?

Of course, this doesn't spell out how they did it, so if it isn't obvious, I'm lost.

 

[ddrueding]

My recent lens spree wasn't an attempt to cover up my lack of experience, I just want to be sure I have the equipment capable of capturing the shots I want. Not that I have the skill to capture the shots I want, but it would be a shame to be further burdened by inappropriate gear.

 

[e_dawg]

Seeking advice:

The Rodin Statuary collection near my house (Stanford) is impossible to get good exposures of. It is dark, and always has blown highlights. Do I need to wait until after sunset? What tricks will help?

Can also try waiting for when the sun is shining directly at or at the front/side obliquely (side-front lighting) at the statue you're trying to take a picture of if it's facing in the right direction, of course.

There's also fill-flash (or, less conveniently, reflectors), but just be careful that certain bumps or protrusion may catch the flash's light and show up as tiny bright overexposed spots.

Depending on how you compose and the relative positions of your subject and the background, you can use graduated ND filters as well.

Expose for the highlights or use more neg exp compensation and manipulate the curves and levels globally AND locally in post-processing to control the contrast and manage the dynamic range.

Unless you make a point of either controlling the lighting and scene contrast (flash, reflectors, grad ND filters), waiting for the right lighting conditions (e.g., moderate front/side-lighting), or using HDR, you will never have enough dynamic range to capture that scene without resorting to post-processing.

 

[Stereodude]

There's also fill-flash (or, less conveniently, reflectors), but just be careful that certain bumps or protrusion may catch the flash's light and show up as tiny bright overexposed spots.

Neither of those are very practical for a large building.

 

[ddrueding]

The statue I really want is about 15' tall and 8' wide, called the Gates of Hell. I must admit I'm happy to see that their pictures suck as well

 

[ddrueding]

First tango-in-the-dark pictures are up. Still "family photos" in composition, but technically possible

Camera: Canon EOS 20D
Exposure: 0.05 sec (1/20)
Aperture: f/1.8
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Exposure Bias: -1 EV

 

[Stereodude]

Is there a reason you intentionally underexposed them?

 

[Handruin]

It might have been an accident. I've done that before with my 20D because of the way the dial controls the exposure bias and also the F-stop...it severely pissed me off, but I learned to check it all the time.

 

[ddrueding]

Yup. Still had it adjusted from the statues. With the camera set to Av mode, it isn't the most obvious thing. But at this point I would do just about anything for faster shutter speed; I assume underexposing will do that?

 

[e_dawg]

Do you mean why would he set it at -1 EV exp comp?

2 reasons I would think:

1. Strategic underexposure. With the low light, I would do the same: knowing I don't have enough light, I know I would have to underexpose every shot to maintain shutter speed and then correct in PP.

2. Because -1 EV underexposure represents what it's like in a dark salsa club, not 18% average, or whatever the meter thinks is proper exposure.

As for why a couple of the shots were left underexposed for viewing on flickr, you'd have to ask Dave that. Perhaps he was shooting in a dark club

 

[ddrueding]

I was shooting in a dark club (actually, the rented ballroom of a church, but it is very dark). I don't really know RAW processing that well, but I'm trying to avoid over/under exposure by looking at the curves and balancing all those sliders accordingly.

Here's one I was just playing with. Pretty much every setting is maxed in one way or another to try and get the picture out. Currently I need two things:

1. Noise reduction tips/tricks/software/settings so I can shoot at 3200ISO
2. A faster lens. DOF isn't the big enemy I thought it was, I just need more speed.

 

[Stereodude]

No, you need a flash. You're not going to get much more light than you are. You're already at F1.8. F1.4 won't help you much. You're also not going to get much better low light performance with a new camera either.

 

[udaman]

I was shooting in a dark club (actually, the rented ballroom of a church, but it is very dark). I don't really know RAW processing that well, but I'm trying to avoid over/under exposure by looking at the curves and balancing all those sliders accordingly.

Here's one I was just playing with. Pretty much every setting is maxed in one way or another to try and get the picture out. Currently I need two things:

1. Noise reduction tips/tricks/software/settings so I can shoot at 3200ISO
2. A faster lens. DOF isn't the big enemy I thought it was, I just need more speed.

1. Noise Ninja for that 'trick' ISO3200 'boost' setting:
http://www.picturecode.com/

2. Can get a 50mm F1.0 Canon lens new for only $3,750 ...but then you could sell your 20D, add $1,250 to that equation for the Canon 50 F1.0 and get an awesome ISO6400 full-frame monster like the new Nikon D3, boost mode to 12.8k, high-boost ISO 25.6k.

Not practical? Oh well, the spirit of Tea got into me somehow .

Sell the 20D, get a Nikon D300 when it comes out @~$1,700. It goes one F-stop higher in ISO sensitivity to 3200, boost of 6400. Your prior example, a bit blurry (someone took it from a tripod, using self-timer or pressing shutter release with fingers, or handheld?) @1/20th. At boost mode of ISO 3200 on the Canon, you'll get up to only 1/40th second, still will get motion blur on the dance floor...must be really dark in there, suprised people don't hit each other with resulting lawsuits, lol .

Going to faster Canon F1.4 (forget about the Canon 50mm L F1.2 it's over $1k and only 1/3rd-1/2 F-stop faster than 1.4, might as well just buy a D300) ~$250 used, you'll get 2/3rds of a stop faster than current F1.8. In other words, the $1,300 Canon F1.2 L 50mm lens is about 1 stop faster than the F1.8 lens. So you could shoot with that lens @1/40th sec @ISO 1600 to take the same picture...or for $0 dollars, you use the noisy ISO boost setting. Means that with just the F1.4 lens, shutter speed would only increase to ~1/33th of a second, boost ISO3200 will allow doubling shutter speed to ~1/66th, better for stationary parts of your picture/less camera shake (upper body), but still probably get motion blur doing the fancy footwork . Using RAW mode, PP with PS, can typically recover and extra stop in DR, so could underexpose 1 stop by setting shutter speed manually to ~1/133th. Looks like shooting in burst/continous mode with yield more prefered images, I would guess?

Or get a new D300, Nikor F1.4 lens. In same scenario, just the ISO boost will get 1/80th sec using a F1.8 lens @ISO 6400(or less noise @ISO3200 w/1/40th sec.). F1.4 good for 2/3rd more of an stop in speed, so 1/66th sec. exposure @ISO3200, 1/133th @6400, shooting RAW will allow 1/266th for that intentional 1 stop underexposure. 1/266th should stop most motion blur...but would you really want that?! But 1/133th might be good enough...and if you did RAW, intentional 1stop underexposure w/ISO3200 and used Noise Ninja plug-in & PS, you'd probably get the best looking image. Eh, I'm getting confused.

Oh my, I don't even need to have Merc tell me this post is causing him a headache, math already doing it to myself, lol.

As to e_dawg's speculation #2, I don't think DD is that knowledgeable at this point to think that way. Besides, for proper exposure, wouldn't you be using center weighted metering or spot modes, or Spot set to AE with AF point selection? Again, who's taking the picture e_dawg-surely not someone with your knowledge of all available camera settings/functions?

 

[ddrueding]

Stereo,

These are candid shots, no flash. Even if that means they aren't possible at all, I can't use flash.

Uda,

Actually, I was following your math pretty closely. Looks good, except for how much money you are talking about. Thanks for the tip on noise ninja, just getting it up to ISO3200 should get me where I need to be. I'm thinking of getting a handheld light meter just to show you guys how dark it really is.

 

[e_dawg]

1. Noise Ninja for that 'trick' ISO3200 'boost' setting:
http://www.picturecode.com/

Yes, the trick is to apply NR selectively (more chroma than luma, more on expansive, monotonal, non-textured surfaces, and less on areas like hair and fur) without sharpening after the global adjustments.

Likewise, selectively apply USM at the end to prevent enhancing noise detail.

Going to faster Canon F1.4 [...] ~$250 used, you'll get 2/3rds of a stop faster than current F1.8.

Yes, that would be my suggestion as well.

Or get a new D300, Nikor F1.4 lens [...] and if you did RAW, intentional 1stop underexposure w/ISO3200 and used Noise Ninja

Wow, all that for an extra stop

As to e_dawg's speculation #2, I don't think DD is that knowledgeable at this point to think that way.

You never know... dd is a fast learner!

I agree with stereodude in that you should use flash wherever possible. It will help!

 

[ddrueding]

You never know... dd is a fast learner!

Thanks

 

[Stereodude]

These are candid shots, no flash. Even if that means they aren't possible at all, I can't use flash.

Why can't you use a flash? The people you are photographing will burst into flames if exposed to a burst from a flash? Look, I'm not suggesting you dump so much light on them it looks like they're dancing in a dark cave, but you can still take candid shots with a flash.

 

[e_dawg]

I think he's afraid of distracting / disrupting them or making them feel self-conscious. Personally, I'm nervous enough as it is just dancing; I don't need someone like dd taking pictures of me esp. with the flash distracting me from my count (123 567 123 567)

 

[ddrueding]

Distracting/Disrupting is right. This isn't a photo shoot, it is a dance. My taking pictures was not requested, nor entirely appreciated. Any change in the atmosphere of the location is completely out of the question.

Further, In order to catch specific moves, it is a lot like bird photography. Leave the camera in rapid-fire mode and lean on the trigger when something is coming up.

 

[ddrueding]

Wow, Noise Ninja is pretty awesome!